Vincent Yzerbyt | UCLouvain (University of Louvain) (original) (raw)

Papers by Vincent Yzerbyt

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), Mar 12, 2023

Research Square (Research Square), Sep 28, 2022

Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 2012

Psychological Review, Mar 1, 2021

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Mar 13, 2020

Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, Feb 7, 2023

The transmissibility of new COVID‐19 variants and decreasing efficacy of vaccines led authorities... more The transmissibility of new COVID‐19 variants and decreasing efficacy of vaccines led authorities to recommend a booster and even an annual dose. However, people's willingness to accept new doses varied considerably. Using two independent longitudinal samples of 4596 (Mean age = 53.6) and 514 (Mean age = 55.9) vaccinated participants, we examined how people's (lack of) vaccination motivation for their first dose was associated with their intention to get a booster (Sample 1) and an annual dose (Sample 2) several months later (Aim 1). We also aimed to capture the impact of the motivational heterogeneity on these intentions by capitalizing on participants' different motivational profiles collected at baseline (Aim 2). Across both samples, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and distrust‐based amotivation were uniquely related to, respectively, higher, lower, and even lower booster and annual dose intentions. Further, a two‐step clustering procedure revealed five profiles, with the profiles characterized by higher autonomous motivation (i.e. Good Quality and High Quantity profiles) reporting the highest vaccination intentions and the profile characterized by the highest number of obstacles (i.e. Global Amotivated profile) yielding the lowest vaccination intentions. These results stress the critical need to support citizens' volitional endorsement of vaccination to harvest long‐term benefits with respect to COVID‐19.

High status group members discriminate against racial outgroup members when they can justify thei... more High status group members discriminate against racial outgroup members when they can justify their behaviours and their decision (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). By the justification process, people can both protect their egalitarian values and their nonprejudiced self-image (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Prior research has shown the use of justification when foreign applicants had ambiguous qualifications (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) or when they were considered as fitting little with the job or with the organization (Esses & al., 2006). But the justification processes remain unclear: what kind of information people use to justify dismiss of an outgroup applicant? We addressed this particular question by asking participants to evaluate both ingroup members (Belgians) and outgroup members (North-Africans) and assume that participants will discriminate against the outgroup members as soon they can use an information, whatever neutral it is. This neutral information was the applicant’s spare-time activity, either connected to national politics or to international politics. Control participants did not receive any information about spare-time activity. We measured discrimination, job fit (i.e. the extent to which applicant’s skills and motivation fit a specific job), organization fit (i.e. the extent to which applicants match the broader attributes of the organization) and spare-time fit (i.e. the extent to which the applicants’ hobby is likely to influence the perception of the participants). Results have shown that participants discriminate against North-Africans in interracial hiring situations as soon as they can justify their greater hiring of Belgian applicants and their greater rejection of north-African applicants through the use of neutral information.. But when no information is provided at all, then participants cannot justify their choice in other factor than race and therefore they don’t not discriminate. Conclusions about the way people use information to justify their hiring or their dismissing and the nature of justifications are drawn.

It is crucial to understand why people comply with measures to contain viruses and their effects ... more It is crucial to understand why people comply with measures to contain viruses and their effects during pandemics. We provide evidence from 35 countries (Ntotal = 12,553) from six continents during the COVID-19 pandemic (between 2021 and 2022) obtained via cross-sectional surveys that the social perception of key protagonists on two basic dimensions – warmth and competence – plays a crucial role in shaping pandemic-related behaviors. Firstly, when asked in an open question format, heads of state, physicians, and protest movements were universally identified as key protagonists across countries. Secondly, multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses revealed that warmth and competence perceptions of these and other protagonists differed significantly within and between countries. Thirdly, internal meta-analyses showed that warmth and competence perceptions of heads of state, physicians, and protest movements were associated with support and opposition intentions, containment and preve...

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021

European Journal of Social Psychology, 2020

The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understand... more The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.

Right after the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, some political leaders declared th... more Right after the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, some political leaders declared that “This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedomloving people everywhere in the world. . . . The freedom-loving nations of the world stand by our side” (G. Bush) or that “We are all Americans” (T. Blair). The work presented in this chapter shows that statements such as these likely (re)define the social landscape with consequences that are far from trivial. This occurs because the salience of social identity makes group members appraise the world from the perspective of the group rather than the individual, which results in emotions felt on behalf of the group instead of the person. Across four studies, we focus on these so-called group-based emotions, as well as other reactions such as group-based appraisals and group identification. Specifically, we argue that communication among ingroup members can make group identity salient, which in turn shapes group-based emotions. In ...

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2020

Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing... more Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five models engage in adversarial collaboration, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach et al., 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt et al., 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et al., 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch et al., 2016). Each has distinctive focus, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies dispute dimensions: number, organization, definition, and labeling; their relative priority; and their relationship. Our first integration suggests two fundamental dimensions: Vertical (agency, competence, “getting ahead”) and Horizontal (communion, warmth, “getting along”), with respective facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on con...

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020

Crises in science concern not only methods, statistics, and results but also, theory development.... more Crises in science concern not only methods, statistics, and results but also, theory development. Beyond the indispensable refinement of tools and procedures, resolving crises would also benefit from a deeper understanding of the concepts and processes guiding research. Usually, theories compete, and some lose, incentivizing destruction of seemingly opposing views. This does not necessarily contribute to accumulating insights, and it may incur collateral damage (e.g., impairing cognitive processes and collegial relations). To develop a more constructive model, we built on adversarial collaboration, which integrates incompatible results into agreed-on new empirical research to test competing hypotheses [D. Kahneman, Am. Psychol. 58, 723–730 (2003)]. Applying theory and evidence from the behavioral sciences, we address the group dynamic complexities of adversarial interactions between scientists. We illustrate the added value of considering these in an “adversarial alignment” that add...